Option of Urbanism: Real Development Subsidization

Another interesting quote from the book. We've covered the costs of sprawl, but there are some fun analogies in here.

A 2004 Albuquerque assessment of the marginal cost of drivable sub-urban development found that it was twenty-two times more costly than walkable urban development for four categories(roads, drainage, public safety, and parks). Yet generally the taxes and fees mandated by municipal law dictate that all development, high-density or low-density, has to pay about the same. The result is that high-density development, as well as the general taxpayer is subsidizing drivable suburbanism. It is just as if by law all restaurants have to be all-you-can eat; those customers who eat very little subsidize those who eat a lot.

During a dinner conversation, a power company CEO was asked what it cost the company to build and service low-density development versus high-density development. He at first looked confused, then responded, "we don't look at our cost structure that way." Because his company is regulated by the state public utility commission, it adds up its costs and divides them evenly across the housing units that it serves, charging all residential users the same per kilowatt. There is no reason for the company to even worry about its marginal cost of doing business, something taught in accounting 101 during the first year of business school.

Airplane Sprawl Exists

Apparently John Travolta's home is not only suburban sprawl, but Airplane Sprawl as well. I wonder what that house's transportation costs are...

Sprawl and Regeneration in Budapest

Sprawl is not limited to the United States. In fact my favorite transit city is under attack from all flanks. Budapest is feeling the horrors of eurosprawl and like everywhere else, it comes with a cost.

"We've exchanged [Victorian-era] London-type smog for Los Angles-type smog," laments Janos Zlinszky of the Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe. "The nature of our environmental problems is shifting."

Across east-central Europe, a region once blighted by Communist-era pollution, economic development is bringing on a new set of environmental problems and, in some cases, bringing back old ones.

The main culprit? American style suburbs. Never would have guessed.

Budapest's worsening air pollution is due in large part to the advent of American-style suburban housing developments and shopping centers, according to Andras Lukacs, president of the Clean Air Action Group. "Several hundred thousand people have moved out of central Budapest and gone to these new so-called residential parks in what used to be green areas," he says. "Each day they come back to their jobs here, but because public transportation isn't so good out there, they take their cars."

But public transit is awesome in the city. They are building two new subway lines in addition to the three they have already. During communism, the transit share was 80% but that system came with a heavy price including an underinvestment in all infrastructure. Many buildings are falling apart and have to have some really hefty scaffolding. Here is a photo I took of the big box sprawl. It was noticeable on the train so I took a shot. The photo below the sprawl is some building scaffolding that keeps building pieces from falling while they are repairing it.

Real Density Comparisons

AC calculates real density by weighted averages of census tracks. Check it out.

Level the Urban Playing Field

A blog I really like to check out is the Bellows. Today Ryan discusses a response to an article about equity in cities vs. suburbs by economist Ed Glaeser. I agree with what he and Ed are saying about cities having to pay for some of suburbanites negative externalities which to him include the urban poor and the car based lifestyle. (Side note: A related recent article that people should read is about the movement of McMansions to McSlums by Chris Leinberger in a recent issue of the Atlantic.)

Back to Ed though; Back during the industrial revolution who could blame people for wanting to get away from the black soot and overcrowding that made up cities. It's different now though and there are lots of rules that keep cities from being the slums they were before. But today, cities pay (or as some say export tax base) to the suburbs in the form of road subsidies versus before when streetcars and streetcar suburbs were funded by the people in those suburbs. This to me is the biggest force today that promotes and spreads real sprawl. There have been policies after WWII that accelerated it including the Federal Highway System and suburban lending practices but those now are more of the beginning of the inertia rather than what is happening now. Now pro-suburban policies include job subsidies and the expansion of roads instead of maintenance. Now let's level the playing field.

No region should receive special favors from the federal government; no city should get special treatment from Beacon Hill. But our cities deserve a level playing field. A level playing field requires that urbanites should not bear an undue burden of caring for the poor and that suburbanites should pay for the environmental costs of energy-intensive lifestyles.

Back to the Bellows, some don't think that we should level the playing field to cities but Ryan gives this response:

His follow-up point that we shouldn’t do things to benefit cities because those things will unfairly benefit the rich is dreadfully off the mark. Glaeser is saying that society as a whole would be more urban if we got rid of some of the distortions preventing such a change (by charging, say, for pollution and congestion externalities). His broader point is that this will make society as a whole better off. And yes, policies to make life better in cities will have the effect of making life better for people in cities, and possibly harder for those in suburbs. So what? If the world needs to reduce carbon emissions, then it’s going to be the case that people who have to cut back most on their emissions get hurt the most. The alternative is to continue to allow those folks to not have to pay for the damage they inflict on the rest of us.

Bakersfield California

Every time I visit my sister's house for Thanksgiving I'm mortified by the autocentricity of the City of Bakersfield. Every time I come back there are more former agricultural fields turned into sprawl and more awful auto oriented commercial strip centers. I wish I could say that there could be transit here but there is no hope for this community it seems. There is a bus system but everyone has a car and the roads are huge. New roads are constructed to be 6 lanes at some point in their lifespan even though at the moment they only carry 2 lanes. It's gross actually. Every road is a speedway basically and the sidewalks that are built are devoid of pedestrians.

There isn't a building higher than 3 stories anywhere except for perhaps one or two and those are surrounded by huge parking lots. Elevators are an obvious rarity. I'm not sure what good having high speed rail down here would be. I know that it would be good for transportation but wouldn't it just be aiding all this crap that gets built down here? I'm sure though that in a few years when water runs short and there get to be too many people, things will change, but will it catastrophic or a slow bleed? I guess we'll have to wait and see. In the mean time, I'll be here at Christmas and Thanksgiving, traveling by car, and stuck on I-5 during if there is a wreck.

Creating Demand for Office TOD

Recently Microsoft has started its own bus service to its campus in Redmond. Google and other companies have these bus services and I've discussed before why they annoyed me. But there might be a small consolation bonus in this that wasn't previously realized. Because of companies such as Google, office space is at a premium making it possible to build more office space near transit stops. According to the Silicon Valley Business Journal:

Demand for quality space in Google-land is strong, and market rental rates now justify the costs of redeveloping obsolete industrial structures into higher-density modern offices, observes veteran Silicon Valley commercial broker Gregory M. Davies at CPS/Corfac Intl. in Santa Clara.

Planned commercial projects are taking advantage of the neighborhood's attractive transit service, including not only the VTA light-rail system but also Caltrain's Baby Bullet express service whizzing commuters from San Francisco in well under an hour, Davies adds.

This also brings up another point about San Jose. The office park sprawl there with all the tech companies is probably the worst I've ever seen. I don't get why our buddy Randal O'Toole calls San Jose a failure in Smart Growth when there is none. The land use around light rail is the worst in the country and never focused. Just junk buildings that should be destroyed and reoriented towards the streets and given a grid.

Check out the aerial below to see what it looks like. Tons of parking spaces and wasted land. Its amazing this system gets over 30,000 riders a day. The green and blue lines are the San Jose Light Rail. Looks like its going through a bunch of industrial warehouses, but they are just single use offices.

Visualize Sprawl

This is a really cool simulation of uncool sprawl. I suggest a look. HT to Transit Miami.

Collapse & Civilizations

I don't even know where to begin to talk about my trip. First there are the ring systems of Vienna and Budapest that I want to write about, I've got about 200 pictures to share and as I hopped on BART today to get home from the SF Airport I was more than just a little bit disappointed about transit efforts in the United States. As I get my bearings and overcome some jet lag I'll try to write up some of my experiences. Sitting at a bar with an Austrian named Mike, almost dieing on the faster than American laws would allow escalators on the Budapest Metro, and the legacy of eastern bloc communism in Budapest and Prague.

I would however like to share something I wrote up on the plane ride over to Vienna...

I’m sitting here on a KLM flight to Amsterdam then to Vienna Austria for vacation with my family in Eastern Europe. The seat to my left is empty and the movie Oceans 13 just finished but I noticed something so true. Earlier there was a man sitting next to me from Visalia. It’s a small town in Central California where agriculture is the lifeblood of the community. Earlier I overheard him talking to the man on his left from Stockton, which is quickly becoming a bedroom community for the Bay Area. He asked what he did for a living and the man replied “I’m a developer”.

Now I’m not usually one to listen in but of course being an urban planner I had to hear what was coming next. The man from Visalia was uncomfortable in his seat being about 6’4” or so. Of course these planes are more like cattle cars than luxurious transportation but his knees were sitting in the cracks of the seats in front of us and his elbow was in my ribs. But he continued cheerily talking asking the developer, if there was any more room to build in Stockton because of the disappearance of farmland. The man from Visalia asked, “Why don’t you build up instead of out?” The developer replied, “There is plenty of land left to build on.” Under my breath I said “Yeah right” realizing what kind of developer he was.

The man from Visalia kept going on about resources and conservation and even ended up discussing taking vegetable oil from fast food restaurants for reuse. He then moved on to me asking what I did. I said “I’m an urban planner.” He seemed surprised. “That guy next to me is a developer.” I nodded and said “Yes I heard.” He asked what I did specifically and I told him. He then went on to discuss his former job as a parole officer and the travesty of the red car. “The Mayor was a crook” he said. “Ripping out all those streetcars.” People I talk to always seem launch into the benefits of transit without provocation. I never prodded him or even told him about my thoughts on the subject but he told me about it anyways. He was around for the red car and seemed specifically upset about their demise. “You’d never be able to build it back today” he said. I told him they were trying.

Throughout the flight he kept getting hit in the knees by the lady in front of us who tried to lean her seat back. He had to protest each time which led him to ask to move seats. The flight attendant was more than happy to help him out so he was out of there leaving me and the developer an empty seat between us. As we both put our stuff on the tray table where the man from Visalia was sitting I noticed the book he put down juxtaposed with the one that I put down. His was a hardcover deep crimson red book titled “Empire”. Mine was a softcover book by Jared Diamond called Collapse about the collapse of several civilizations throughout history by climate change among a number of other factors including war and societal suicide (ie: Easter Island). It really stuck in my head the difference between the two sets of warring factions in the sprawl fight. The ones who think there are endless spoils to be had and a never ending supply of resources, and those who are looking to avoid a collapse. I’ve never seen the fight in such black/white or good/evil terms and probably will never again because of course it is never so simple. I’m not a hardcore environmentalist or anything but for a moment there I realized why I do what I do.

How To Hate Light Rail in Houston

Apparently there is a recipe in Houston for anti-rail arguments. Go to any Houston anti-rail site and there is a clearly a template for bashing rail lines. I can see the book now, steps for being against rail in Houston. I noticed some of the many steps in a recent editorial in the Houston Chronicle.

Step 1: Claim the Light Rail Blocks Traffic and Hogs the Road.

Though the light-rail trains don't often sit still to clog streets, the right-of-way hogs do stifle traffic through downtown and Midtown each day. If the leaders of the Metropolitan Transit Authority have their way, Richmond Avenue will also soon be nearly impassable during rush hours.

Remind me again how many people those LRVs carry versus cars? So who should have priority, a train full of people, or a single occupancy vehicle? Increasing the capacity of Main Street seems to be rather beneficial. The line does get 40,000 riders a day.

Step 2: Transit should be a private enterprise, since cars always pay for themselves.

The New York Times, which so often whiffs at attempts to explain Houston to the nation, highlighted the downtown tunnel system recently in a feature story that illustrates how the city works best.

"(The tunnel system) was not centrally planned; it just grew," wrote Houston-based reporter Ralph Blumenthal. "And, befitting Texans' distrust of government, most of it is private."

Rule 3: Cite Joel Kotkin or Wendell Cox or RandalL O'Toole as Experts

Light rail and bike paths are but two examples of the current push to shape Houston in the vision of urban planners and civic leaders who hate Houston's now 171-year tradition of organic growth. A debate on such matters has been carried out in this newspaper since urban expert Joel Kotkin told the Greater Houston Partnership early this summer that Houston's embrace of free-market planning was a great example for other cities.

Outsiders like Kotkin seem to have a pretty good view of Houston's workings these days, perhaps even better than its residents.

It always cracks me up that there is no mention of where these guys come from or their motives, just that they are experts. But most people know who these guys are by now.

Rule 4: Houston's Lack of Planning Make it the Greatest City in the USA

Indeed, like the tunnels, Houston wasn't planned so much as it just grew into the nation's fourth-largest city. Now, many would like to see Houston turn its back on the very strategy — that is, nonstrategy — that made the city great.

Rule 5: The Public Process is Flawed Because We the Minority Aren't Getting Our Way

Alas resistance, as they say, is futile. Metro recently held public hearings that allowed opponents of the Richmond rail route to voice their dissent. But surely all those attending the meeting know any words of discord fell on deaf ears.

Seemingly nothing can be said that will convince Metro's leaders of anything other than the plan they're forcing on Houston. Those who live and operate businesses along Richmond are told to sacrifice for the "greater good."

I believe over 50% voted for the Metro Solutions light rail plan and most people on Richmond want the rail line. The stats that come from Culbertson's head are just that, in his head.

Rule 6: If It Doesn't Serve Suburban Commuters, It Doesn't Serve Anyone Worth Serving

Never mind that the light rail can't get commuters from the suburbs to their jobs. Or that Houston's decentralized population and wide geographic reach vastly reduce the utility of a static mass transit structure.

Of course they are probably fine with the HOV lane road warrior bus system they created. People in Houston working along the major freeways have an option with those HOV lanes built with federal funding. Very few people realize that Houston has already spent at least a billion dollars on those spokes. Yet even with those improvements, there was still a need for a crazy expansion of the Katy Freeway, which no one complains about going over budget.

Rule 7: Call the Rail Line a Name

I know the guy in this article wanted to call the Houston light rail by a name, perhaps danger train or something silly like that, but he had to look credible right?

So take a look at all of these elements of a rail attack piece, does it look like every other attack piece ever done? Of course it does because deep down they just do not like rail and can not just come out and say it. All they have to do is say "I don't like rail". This is not a war of ideas but one of ideology. It's like a virus that has spread from Karl Rove's brain to every aspect of life.

If you have another step, feel free to post it in the comments.

Land Use, Land Use, Land Use

We've known for a while now that it isn't just the transportation that matters, it's also the land use it serves. And new research from Smart Growth America is another rather compelling argument for it. It basically states that compact development is key to reducing auto dependence and the effects of climate change. This report also uses the expertise of Jerry Walters at Fehr & Peers who with his colleagues there has come up with the direct ridership model which does a better job at predicting ridership based on different access to the stations such as bikes, buses, and walking based on the land uses and the surrounding grid. Previous studies referenced in this report state that there is a 35% reduction in driving from compact development.

The 1994 Portland Metro Travel Survey stated that people who live in mixed use communities with good transit take about 9.8 VMT per capita versus 21.7 VMT per capita. That's rather impressive and shows that increases in transportation and land use measures would benefit cities who are looking to reduce VMT. This finding was used to show that the over 7,000 housing units built on the streetcar line downtown in walkable, transit oriented neighborhoods, would reduce VMT by 31 million a year. If we say that a gallon of gas is 20 pounds of carbon, then we would reduce carbon emissions by 24.8 million pounds if fuel economy is 25 mpg which is being really generous.

More transit options, more compact development, reduced VMT.

Sprawlista Argues for...Well...Sprawl

The LATimes has had a dust up session much like one they held a few months ago over transit and smart growth. Basically they pit sprawl loving auto junkies versus transit or growth experts. It's a good read with lots of interesting points. I think the best part about it is that it allows us to hone our arguments against the knuckle draggers out there who just don't get it. I'm not a fan of Robert Bruegman, mostly because he distorts facts to get the desired outcome, but more so because his arguments sound like they are coming from a 1950's highway engineer who doesn't have to worry about VMT, Energy issues, or quality of life. I mean basically he's throwing all of today's issues. When you read these, keep in mind that he doesn't address any serious issues of the day. He skirts them.

Day 1. Density is LA's Undoing... Seriously...thats what Rob says. In fact he even makes the old basketball trash talk, you can't stop me, you can only hope to contain me.

Day 2. A Greener American Dream... let us hope this is what happens. Although Rob B. Makes a fool of himself when he argues that basically we should just let inertia take us where it will.

Day 3. Mass Transit... Rob argues for PRT while Gloria Ohland argues for housing choices. I'm glad she reframed the issue on him. The transit doesn't work because it doesn't address sprawl attitude is getting tired. If there were better, cheaper technologies out there, then wouldn't we be using them now? I mean just today we pushed the gas standards up to 35 mpg by 2020. While incredibly weak, we're been letting the auto industry get away with murder by babying them. Toyota isn't going under. I want moving sidewalks and those speed tubes from Futurama, but they aren't coming as long as the auto and concrete lobbies are in Washington. And right now the most efficient way to move people on a per passenger mile basis, and most fuel efficient is rail.

Day 4. It's Coming Soon...

I would do more commentary but really i'm just annoyed that people think like this. And really, if you don't know that sprawl is bad by now, then you might never get it. Is anyone else tired of the inertia and the same old arguments about the free market. Well if the free market worked the way the libertarians wanted it to, we would have transit and we wouldn't have ridiculous sprawling suburbs. If anyone gets a chance, they should check out Jonathan Levine's book, Zoned Out. It puts all that junk to rest, at least in my mind.

Federal Gravy Train

It's often the federal government that's giving out money for transportation. Well they aren't really giving it out, we paid them taxes and they give it back to us. In places like the Bay Area we get back less than we pay in. Why is it that regions who pay the most money act as welfare areas to the other parts of the state or country. I certainly don't want my money going to build Don Young's Alaska bridge to no-where. But how much extra money would there be if there was a regional system instead of a state system? It's an interesting question that might get an interesting answer if i had the data.

So yesterday two bay area congressional members, one of them is my Gramma's congresswoman, asked the congressional transportation overlord for more money back. I think its great but I'm wondering what types of projects it would go to. Freeway expansion? I don't care about that since i don't use the freeway often, and if i do, it's on Wednesday night when no one is on it and I still pay the bridge toll, which brings me to my next point...freeway o holics love to say that highways are paid for by user fees. But what about those of us who pay gas taxes but don't drive on the freeway, or drive on the freeway that doesn't get any of that money. I hardly call that a user fee. It sounds like subsidy to me given that none of my gas tax money goes to my street.

I think M1ek touched on this at one point but when are suburbanites gonna realize they are just freeloading off the people who use surface streets? I'm all for tolls and perhaps if people had to pay the true cost of suburbanization, they might realize, well of course we should build more transit and collectively ride it, it would save us a ton of money. I know i know, wishful thinking.

Anyways, perhaps we shouldn't have a federal gravy train at all. Transportation monies should go to regional entities rather than national ones. Then we'll get the money the region needs and it will be spent on regional problems. I dunno. Thoughts?

The Automobile is Like a Candy Bar

Reposted from my previous blog.

I keep thinking about how the Automobile is driving america mad. It seems to me like it's the epitome of personal choice and Conservatism vs. Liberalism or Progressivism or whatever you want to call either of the two. But to me American is to Car like Kid is to Candy Bar. How does that work out you ask? Well when we are younger we are taught the food pyrimid. And we are also taught about the food groups of which you have to have portions of each to make up a balanced meal. Well in order to have a balanced city we have to have all the transportation types and like food groups, too much of one thing could be bad. Enter the car. We have so much car that eventually cities are going to have heart attacks. The congestion will be so great and there will be little people can do to fix it. Thats why we need to go on a diet now. I don't really believe in diets, mostly cause i ran in college and know that most people are really lazy and i'll admit i'm an elitist in that respect. But in order to get fit you need to change lifestyle, not just not eat for a few days then binge. But everyone knows that to lose weight you have to take in less calories than you expend during the day. That means excercise and for cities, they have to stop building roads and work out a little. Build up the infrastructure like you would your body. Too many roads is akin to getting fat and not putting in the transit infrastructure is like saying your going to the gym but you're not. They are just wasting your time while you watch TV. I guess traffic is like TV. Staring into space wasting money and brain cells. Don't get me wrong though, i love TV and I love sugar based candy bars. And when I was little I surely thought that life would be grand if i could have them for every meal. But a few Halloween's later we all learn that too much candy can lead to bad bad things. O'Toole, Cox and road only folks are basically telling everyone to get on Atkins. Sure you can eat bacon for every meal but you're heart might explode in the process. Buses, Trains, Bikes, Walking, Cars...they are all part of a healthy city.

The Mobility Myth

Richard Layman over at Rebuilding Place in the Urban Space discusses the interesting comments from the Washington Post editorial board on reducing congestion. Fred Hiatt of the Post states wrongly of course that we can build our way out of congestion and that we can never fix it is a myth. But the real myth Layman says is: "anyone who wants to can drive a car whenever they want and that the roads to accommodate them can be easily provided." He's right. We shouldn't be building to accommodate free flow whenever people need to use the roads. There are certain times a day when of course everyone is going from one place to another.

Mr. Layman also brings about the following Private Mobility Myth from Bacon's Rebellion Blog

Regardless of where they live, work, seek services and participate in leisure activities, citizens believe that it is physically possible for the government to build a roadway system that allows them to drive wherever they want to, whenever they want to go there and arrive in a timely and safe manner.

The Private-Vehicle Mobility Myth helps parents convince themselves that the house with the “big yard” may be a long way from where the jobs, services, recreation and amenities are now, but that will change. Politicians reinforce the myth by continuing to promise that “soon” they will improve the roads and the big yard owners will be able to get to wherever quickly.

More Milwaukee and a Sane Commentary

As I've stated before, the crazy folks in Milwaukee and elsewhere (Villains like O'Toole and Cox) believe that transit is for the poor. They think that if the economy was better everyone would be able to drive. Well the editorial staff of the local newspaper isn't buying it and it shows. After printing numerous positive letters to the editor and listening to the opposition, they've had enough.

This'll be a stunning statement here, he said, accurately. "I want to have a system that serves the needs of people who are dependent on mass transit. But ideally, I'd like to build an economy in this county and this city that means that fewer people are dependent on mass transit."In other words, transit is welfare, which government provides for the poor souls who lack cars. Transit's also a zero-sum game, in which the middle class benefits only at the expense of the needy. Transit wasn't always welfare. The middle class and the poor rode the streetcars of yore shoulder to shoulder. In other cities - Minneapolis-St. Paul being a recent example - light rail has proved to be one way to return to those days.

Just fighting the good fight. Props to the Journal Sentinel for figuring it out.

The Deja Vu and SAFETEA LU

Does this sound familiar?

To make matters worse, the 1952 rollover legislation actually curtailed the ability of urban projects to qualify for federal aid. In these circumstances, just as before World War II, the states responded by borrowing for streets, roads and highways. Between 1952 and 1955, the total amount of such debt exploded, from $5.8 billion in 1952 to $10.1 billion by the end of 1955 (about $75 billion in today dollars).

Any road warriors want to talk about free markets still? I could go on all year with this stuff. 20th Century Sprawl

They Don't Really Care About Us

In the next few weeks I'm going to be quoting and commenting on clips from the book 2oth Century Sprawl. The following quote is interesting because it shows that all along the roads movement hasn't cared about urban mobility but rather just treating urban areas as a nuisance. Thomas MacDonald, head of the Bureau of Public Roads, was a huge proponent of the Federal Highway System. However in order to get them built he needed the traffic counts from urban areas. In promising congestion alleviation it would get a lot of political support that was needed to build the system. MacDonald's report, Interregional Highways was the basis for the 1944 Federal Aid Highway Act that created the Federal Highway System, needed the urban areas to buy in. But the following says it all...

In another section of the report, MacDonald acknowledged with surprising candor that the urban components of the system were not designed to alleviate urban congestion, except to the extent that they would provide relieve to those motorists for whom the city was an inconvenient obstruction.

That's how people think of the city today as well. While Rick Perry in Texas believes that the TransTexas Corridor will alleviate congestion, that is not his want at all. He just wants the political support from urban areas.

So even the King of Roads acknowledged that the Interstate Highway System was not built to alleviate urban congestion, so why do we continue to listen to people who want to build more and more and more roads to solve congestion? They just want to avoid the city all together. We also know that because of Highway Federalism that most of the money collected from gas taxes in Urban Areas does not go into urban projects. It's redistributed around the state in which that region is a part. This is the problem with our funding system, so why don't we hear more about it?

Automobility Quotes

As I was away from my computer this weekend i did pick up a book called 20th Century Sprawl by Owen Gutfreund, the director of Urban Studies at Columbia University. There is a lot of good research but this line hit me the most.

Between 1921 and 1932 American Governments spent $21 Billion dollars on streets and highways and collected only $5 billion from motor vehicle users. This meant that motorists were directly contributing less than 1/4 of the direct costs of adapting use of the automobile.

But of course freeways have always been paid for by user fees, never subsidized right??? But who subsidized the streets for cars and trucks without being allowed to raise their rates? Streetcar Companies

As a private company operating under a public franchise, large portions of DTCs (Denver Tramway Company) cost structure was governed by its franchise agreement, as were fares. For example, one of the oldest provisions of the contract required the company to pay half the maintenance and repair costs on streets with two way operation...As more and more streets were paved and improved and subjected to the pounding wear-and-tear of thousands of automobiles and trucks, which were much heavier than the horse drawn vehicles in use when DTC had made this financial commitment, the company had to contribute more and more money to street projects....However, the franchise agreement also capped fares at 5 cents and in 1917 despite record ridership levels, DTC was unable to pay a dividend and reported an annual loss of half a million dollars.

A change to a 7 cent fare led to the 1920 tramway strikes because people have never wanted to pay the full cost of transportation, whether it be roads or transit. They expect it to be subsidized for their autos, so why is everyone complaining about subsidizing transit, especially when initially transit helped build and maintain those roads that allowed autos to become dominant.

The Cost of Sprawl

A little food for thought on smart growth.

For a suburban home in somewhere like Oakley California or Spring Texas it costs $8,500 per housing unit to provide water and sewer infrastructure. Compare that to in a neighborhood like West University in Houston or Berkeley California where that same house only costs $6,540 to hook up to the water and sewer if it were single family detached.

Now if it were attached in West U or Berkeley it would cost $5050. And if it were a multi-family unit it would cost a measly $3,800. So perhaps someone can elaborate on why a 500 home subdivision that includes roads in the suburbs (not included in the above numbers) is market driven while the 500 unit building downtown is subsidized. According to the research, that apartment complex downtown just saved $2,350,000 in water and sewer alone. That doesn't even count roads and the negative externalities of driving or detached housing and energy use etc etc etc.

Data from Sprawl Costs by Robert Burchill et al. from Island Press.